The current consensus says it is right to create a page about a fiction person in a sf serie, but a page about a real person needs a lot more noticeably to be not deleted on the fast track list.
If you think it is right to place a external link. Think again. wikithink will most likely remove it.
sourceforge REQUIRES you upload the source. This is a sourceforge requirement, and is independent of the gpl.
Just create a support ticket on sourceforge and in some weeks(in my expierience) that project is either closed or the source is put in the file release system.
But it is actually part of the systemic failure of the industry to promote Open Access.
It all is a routine, until they are caught, in which case they say "oops". They better try this not on legal students who care.
Cleary they did not go by CC license, which makes "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Thus they will have to pay Peter murray for copyright, and fast! I bet they have a standard fee for unlimited online relicencing....
Actually the system worked as intended. WGA has 2 points why it exists.
1. Limit functionality of systems. 2. Strike fear with the intention to seell genuine windows licenses.
It successfully limited the functionality of at least 12.000 systems, and those who got the message know someone is watching them. Maybe even a small percentage will buy a new license of vista.
Human error for soem software problem like declaring someone death because his heart stopped ticking. All software is written/released by humans, and dead people alsways have a stopped heart. It fails to tell the real cause.
rule 1 states one must keep the licence intact. Rule 2 asks for source.
So even if they provide source ( i bet they refer you to the download link of sourceforge.net) they still fail to obey the GPL because they DID NOT INCLUDE THE LICENSE.
Quite why people suddenly think that drives are going to fail catastrophically at the same time like this is be
An experienced administrator would know there is one item in the data center everything is relying on no-one could ever think of it failing, and it will fail at the most catastrophic time you think of. It won't be all fo those 1000'thns drives failing at the same time because some plane mistook your server lights for the landing runway, It will be some cheap sprinkler, the security lock of the door, Or some manager that decides to shutdown a machine to protect it from a Denial of service attack.
If there is no such item a good BOFH will create such red button.
The text is almost correct... until you look at the picture and see that the VM's are nto perferct isolated but use a communication channel that effectively links the gplv3 code (linux is still v2?!?!) tightly to the video application. That part is not discussed in the text. I think it is all allowed under v3 until the v3 code is tightly inter coupled with the video application. (YES the RED part, like the evil guy wearing black this evil part of the picture is colored RED!;)
By the way, linux on the ps2 is run that way. It is run in a tight controlled section of the machine that does not have access to the copy control mechanism. But in that case there is not sought after a way to circumvent those limits. YOu cannot play a dvd under ps2 linux
If there any other limits in the networking stack at VERY high speeds.
One thing i notice here is that the number of packets is limited in the kernel. On high speed connections on the internet i have been testing with, there also seem some limits on XP SP2. i.e. it seem to misbehave when setting a large socketbuffer size.
I wonder what limits more there are since SP2 to protect users.
Also mark thinks that you can never reach high speeds over 100Mbit over the internet. This is of course a bad assumption since servers with 1 Gbit connection and faster are connected to the internet nowadays. Not typical machines where you would play sound, but again a bad assumption.
Ok, that is a sending limit, and it seems this was a receiving limit. But if the receiving is limited there is no point in optimizing the sending limit...... -- fill in your standard rant about closed source drivers here..
If you use open source software, and not redistribute it you can mostly ignore the open source license. You can use it on as many computers as you like with many strange license combinations. For closed commercial software you have to track all the licenses, for open source you do not have to track the number of uses.
The real question begins if you want to distribute a packet of open source software and want to know if they are license compatible. ANd the real trouble starts if you want to use a loophole of some license to sell it bundled it together with your own commercial software.
High performance=short response times. In your case you can think about caching more and tuning the system and database access. Maybe you can make the application more scalable, but once you move the database to different server than the application you first get some extra (network) overhead instead of performance, specially in low load situations. And more iron/servers means more money.
High availably is about a 24x7 and no singe point of failure. One method for this is clustering (more application web servers,more replicated databases,)
You want to learn about eXtreme load? Simulate it in your testing environment. Testing is important but not simple.
Actually streaming audio might be a good test. One suggestion in that topic is that the cause is that vista is raising the priority of threads related to streaming. Stream audio over tcp/ip might raise the priority of the tcp/ip stack and the problem might be cornered this way.
In the article nowhere is said that this is server software. I can imagine this kind of software just fine on a desktop that runs a browser, mail and office software for the average office warrior. As it won't play dvd they can even save a few dollar cent they won't have to pay to dvd patents holders
1. The license of MS does not allow DRM content (like playing a dvd) in a virtual machine. Unless dell can get a different license from MS. 2. Virtualsation still comes with performance cost. 3% up to 50%. Not good for your benchmarks. Unless you think a Pentium II 450Mhz still is fast enough. 3. Drivers. Forget directX 9c or directX 10. Forget Vista Aero.
On a company box there is no problem running in a hypervisor since all 3 points are not important there. Performance can be made good for by buying more hardware (Dell like that), and the latest directX is no need on a regular desktop that uses integrated intel video.
Although, if Media Defender are financially profiting from illegally offering copyrighted works, I would think they are in a much worse position than any users who downloaded the media.
MOD PARENT UP. The people who gain most profit from p2p are those who are against p2p networks, they are the one who put spam in it and upload fake files. SO instead of asking damages from people who do not make any profit (users) the anti-p2p companies should be sued first for using the p2p networks to get money.
The fact if they actually offer files that contain copyrighted work is only partly relevant. They claim to offer those files, and for users there is no way to determine if the file they are downloading is what they intend to download. It could be a fake, it could be the real thing. So suing people for downloading (and sharing at the same time) a defense can be that they intended to download something else. However due to the pollution by anti-p2p companies you cannot expect to get what you intended. They weakened their own legal attack by this.
Bit torrent could be fairly well targeted with a blacklist of torrent sites, but not completely since the distributed tracker can be used to avoid a central tracker.
Encryption (/protocol obfuscation) stops cost-effective deep packet inspections for bittorrent and eMule.
And there is no way to effectively detect darknets like freenet, let alone the content in it.
It is sad that more money is made with anti-p2p services than with p2p.
And if the data is critical make sure you have 2 of those raid cards. If the raid card itself fails it might be very hard to get a card version that accesses the data guaranteed in the same way, your disk may be intact, but you cannot access the data because it is in raid format you do not have interface for.
or loose the rights for your 1 billion dollar suit!
also people have repeatable and publicly been requesting that microsoft identify what patents they think are being infringed. M$ should tell them or loose the right to get remedies. 35USC287: TITLE 35--PATENTS PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS CHAPTER 29--REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS Sec. 287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice.
says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to
a request for disclosure,... (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of good faith:
(i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
(ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving
the request for disclosure; and
(iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the
manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier,
of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a
request for a written statement that the process claimed in any
patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such
product.
The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement.
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure'' means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section 271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for disclosure is further limited to a request--
(i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United
States in the sale of the same type of products as those
manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which
includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to
engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
(ii) which is made by such person before the person's first
importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product
produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice
of infringement with respect to the product; and
(iii) which includes a representation by the person making the
request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified
pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer
is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the
person making the req
well looking at the law: 1201 A 1)....(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title....
futher below... ''(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
Not providing a mechanism at all to protect is pretty much avoidance. That is exactly why MS buildin a lot of DRM crap into vista: to be able to have a mechanism that is very hard to circumvent. Or would it be allowed to build and distribute a version of a media player that does not have the protections?
However, i think the copyrightholder should go to court, not some random producer.
Slashdot Mirror
The editors of wikipedia determine this.
The current consensus says it is right to create a page about a fiction person in a sf serie, but a page about a real person needs a lot more noticeably to be not deleted on the fast track list.
If you think it is right to place a external link. Think again. wikithink will most likely remove it.
No..
sourceforge REQUIRES you upload the source. This is a sourceforge requirement, and is independent of the gpl.
Just create a support ticket on sourceforge and in some weeks(in my expierience) that project is either closed or the source is put in the file release system.
They should follow the money.
from TFA
But it is actually part of the systemic failure of the industry to promote Open Access.
It all is a routine, until they are caught, in which case they say "oops". They better try this not on legal students who care.
Cleary they did not go by CC license, which makes "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Thus they will have to pay Peter murray for copyright, and fast! I bet they have a standard fee for unlimited online relicencing....
Actually the system worked as intended. WGA has 2 points why it exists.
1. Limit functionality of systems.
2. Strike fear with the intention to seell genuine windows licenses.
It successfully limited the functionality of at least 12.000 systems, and those who got the message know someone is watching them. Maybe even a small percentage will buy a new license of vista.
Human error for soem software problem like declaring someone death because his heart stopped ticking. All software is written/released by humans, and dead people alsways have a stopped heart. It fails to tell the real cause.
Note that the translator says "one of the participants of the working group cast more than one vote ."
How about MS sweden making almost 20 votes, most by proxy? that is also covered by that translated line.
In the gplv2
rule 1 states one must keep the licence intact.
Rule 2 asks for source.
So even if they provide source ( i bet they refer you to the download link of sourceforge.net) they still fail to obey the GPL because they DID NOT INCLUDE THE LICENSE.
Quite why people suddenly think that drives are going to fail catastrophically at the same time like this is be
An experienced administrator would know there is one item in the data center everything is relying on no-one could ever think of it failing, and it will fail at the most catastrophic time you think of. It won't be all fo those 1000'thns drives failing at the same time because some plane mistook your server lights for the landing runway, It will be some cheap sprinkler, the security lock of the door, Or some manager that decides to shutdown a machine to protect it from a Denial of service attack.
If there is no such item a good BOFH will create such red button.
The text is almost correct... until you look at the picture and see that the VM's are nto perferct isolated but use a communication channel that effectively links the gplv3 code (linux is still v2?!?!) tightly to the video application. That part is not discussed in the text. I think it is all allowed under v3 until the v3 code is tightly inter coupled with the video application. (YES the RED part, like the evil guy wearing black this evil part of the picture is colored RED! ;)
By the way, linux on the ps2 is run that way. It is run in a tight controlled section of the machine that does not have access to the copy control mechanism. But in that case there is not sought after a way to circumvent those limits. YOu cannot play a dvd under ps2 linux
If there any other limits in the networking stack at VERY high speeds.
..... -- fill in your standard rant about closed source drivers here..
One thing i notice here is that the number of packets is limited in the kernel. On high speed connections on the internet i have been testing with, there also seem some limits on XP SP2. i.e. it seem to misbehave when setting a large socketbuffer size.
I wonder what limits more there are since SP2 to protect users.
Also mark thinks that you can never reach high speeds over 100Mbit over the internet. This is of course a bad assumption since servers with 1 Gbit connection and faster are connected to the internet nowadays. Not typical machines where you would play sound, but again a bad assumption.
Ok, that is a sending limit, and it seems this was a receiving limit. But if the receiving is limited there is no point in optimizing the sending limit.
The advantage of running not running windows genuine are made clear by this incident.
If you use open source software, and not redistribute it you can mostly ignore the open source license. You can use it on as many computers as you like with many strange license combinations. For closed commercial software you have to track all the licenses, for open source you do not have to track the number of uses.
The real question begins if you want to distribute a packet of open source software and want to know if they are license compatible. ANd the real trouble starts if you want to use a loophole of some license to sell it bundled it together with your own commercial software.
Agreed.
,more replicated databases,)
High performance=short response times. In your case you can think about caching more and tuning the system and database access. Maybe you can make the application more scalable, but once you move the database to different server than the application you first get some extra (network) overhead instead of performance, specially in low load situations. And more iron/servers means more money.
High availably is about a 24x7 and no singe point of failure. One method for this is clustering (more application web servers
You want to learn about eXtreme load? Simulate it in your testing environment. Testing is important but not simple.
Actually streaming audio might be a good test. One suggestion in that topic is that the cause is that vista is raising the priority of threads related to streaming. Stream audio over tcp/ip might raise the priority of the tcp/ip stack and the problem might be cornered this way.
But as always, MS is silent.
Since when is a coupon copyrightable?
Since the same time that banknotes are copyright protected. I think that is the whole reason there can be so big penalties on copyright violations..
In the article nowhere is said that this is server software. I can imagine this kind of software just fine on a desktop that runs a browser, mail and office software for the average office warrior. As it won't play dvd they can even save a few dollar cent they won't have to pay to dvd patents holders
I am surprised no-one called all these 3 things:
1. The license of MS does not allow DRM content (like playing a dvd) in a virtual machine. Unless dell can get a different license from MS.
2. Virtualsation still comes with performance cost. 3% up to 50%. Not good for your benchmarks. Unless you think a Pentium II 450Mhz still is fast enough.
3. Drivers. Forget directX 9c or directX 10. Forget Vista Aero.
On a company box there is no problem running in a hypervisor since all 3 points are not important there. Performance can be made good for by buying more hardware (Dell like that), and the latest directX is no need on a regular desktop that uses integrated intel video.
The fact that it runs in userspace means it can corrupt your data from userspace instead corrupting other programs from kernal space.
a program of driver that runs in userspace does not make it good program...... 8p
Although, if Media Defender are financially profiting from illegally offering copyrighted works, I would think they are in a much worse position than any users who downloaded the media.
MOD PARENT UP. The people who gain most profit from p2p are those who are against p2p networks, they are the one who put spam in it and upload fake files. SO instead of asking damages from people who do not make any profit (users) the anti-p2p companies should be sued first for using the p2p networks to get money.
The fact if they actually offer files that contain copyrighted work is only partly relevant. They claim to offer those files, and for users there is no way to determine if the file they are downloading is what they intend to download. It could be a fake, it could be the real thing. So suing people for downloading (and sharing at the same time) a defense can be that they intended to download something else. However due to the pollution by anti-p2p companies you cannot expect to get what you intended. They weakened their own legal attack by this.
disclaimer: IANAL.
Bit torrent could be fairly well targeted with a blacklist of torrent sites, but not completely since the distributed tracker can be used to avoid a central tracker.
Encryption (/protocol obfuscation) stops cost-effective deep packet inspections for bittorrent and eMule.
And there is no way to effectively detect darknets like freenet, let alone the content in it.
It is sad that more money is made with anti-p2p services than with p2p.
It is a tool, GPL, used by programmers, and nobody made a fork of it in 6 year that became popular? hmm.. strange.
And if the data is critical make sure you have 2 of those raid cards. If the raid card itself fails it might be very hard to get a card version that accesses the data guaranteed in the same way, your disk may be intact, but you cannot access the data because it is in raid format you do not have interface for.
THe pirates are no good pirates. they do not have a parrot. SO the ninja's will win!
or loose the rights for your 1 billion dollar suit!
...
also people have repeatable and publicly been requesting that microsoft identify what patents they think are being infringed. M$ should tell them or loose the right to get remedies.
35USC287:
TITLE 35--PATENTS
PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS
CHAPTER 29--REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS
Sec. 287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice.
says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an
action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall
consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to
a request for disclosure,
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of
good faith:
(i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
(ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving
the request for disclosure; and
(iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the
manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier,
of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a
request for a written statement that the process claimed in any
patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such
product.
The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is
evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or
like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary
or practicable to avoid infringement.
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure''
means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture
of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to
that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then
reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section
271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or
used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for
disclosure is further limited to a request--
(i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United
States in the sale of the same type of products as those
manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which
includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to
engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
(ii) which is made by such person before the person's first
importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product
produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice
of infringement with respect to the product; and
(iii) which includes a representation by the person making the
request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified
pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer
is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the
person making the req
well looking at the law:
1201 A 1)....(A) No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title....
futher below...
''(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work,
or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair
a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner; and
Not providing a mechanism at all to protect is pretty much avoidance. That is exactly why MS buildin a lot of DRM crap into vista: to be able to have a mechanism that is very hard to circumvent. Or would it be allowed to build and distribute a version of a media player that does not have the protections?
However, i think the copyrightholder should go to court, not some random producer.